Always-on cellular connection at slow bandwidth, vs. always-on 802.11 connection, provided we have thousands of free nodes so we can roam city to city, always having an internet connection (and not having to pay by the minute). Hmm...
Infrastructure that's already in place, vs. spending a *lot* of money to add an entirely new infrastructure...
Tomorrow, if Bill G. announces that Micro$oft (via Windows 9X/Me/NT/2K/CE/XP/YZ) will be collecting "anonymous statistics" about which websites you visit, what you read, etc. and assures you that these statistics will be used only to "improve your online browsing experience", without identifying you personally (other than by your ZIP code), how many of you would agree to that (assuming you use Micro$oft's products)?
In this case, it probably has more to do with Microsoft's reputation vs. TiVo's. In the eyes of many, Microsoft has participated in lots of shady shenanigans. On the other hand, many people have trust for TiVo because TiVo appears to go to significant effort to keep their customers informed of anything that could be construed as questionable behavior.
Reality is all about perception; don't forget that.
So which frames are they cutting, and do they plan to cut the audio too? I suppose during moments of intense silence, cutting a 24/th of a second of audio won't be a big problem, but still.
I don't get what all the sudden uproar over this particular time compression box is about. FYI, everyone...this technology has been around for a good while now, and you've probably been watching it everyday and nobody complained about it until now. Why now? Why haven't people been noticing that the shows are time-compressed and complaining about it in the comments of articles about TV?
The reason it works is more or less because many people are mindless drones (thank you TV, Media, Internet) and will buy into whatever you put in front of them. Most people aren't like this, but then again most people hate spam.
Ah, yes...and how exactly does TV, other mass media, and the Internet make people into mindless drones? Is EM radiation turning us into zombies or something? Are there mind-altering signals embedded in websites? Do see hidden swastikas in national newspapers? Do infomercials feature hypnosis?
It always gets me when people take potshots at mass media when they don't back it up with facts.
If you decide to try to transition the local government to open source software, you'll have to expend resources to train everyone that's used to using Word and Excel on Windows to use something else on Linux. In addition, you'll have to pay someone to install all those copies of Linux and friends, and most likely the current support staff isn't equipped to support Linux and Linux-based applications.
Something like this will most likely end up costing more in the end.
One machine with sufficient power (700MHz G3 is pretty quick) that makes all that truly easy would be a great thing for most homes. But... the secret lies in the software, not the hardware. I'd like to see something like this for PCs.
I don't think this will happen anytime in the near future. Few companies seem as brave as Apple is when it comes to taking steps towards throwing out the old ways.
"Let's face it. The entertainment industry is the biggest pirate in town. They steal your music, your culture, your ideas, your stories, your language, mass produce it, shrink-wrap it and then sell it back to you."
One of the main functions of mass media is the perpetuation and dissemination of culture. Although RIAA may be greedy about it, why is the dissemination of culture bad necessarily?
In most cultures, people are willing to pay for reflexive representation of values they hold. Whether it's a poster for the movie Pi or an N'Sync album, both are cultural representations and perpatuations...and people are willing to pay for both. Why is this bad?
While this doesn't make sense for a consumer grade camera today, it might make sense for a pro grade camera for use by reporters in the field.
*NO* media professional would ever take a product like this seriously. Have you ever seen an electronic news gathering camera? It's cluttered up with enough buttons as it is, and the display has enough indicators to deal with without silly things like email and web browsers.
DV footage is about four megabytes per second. On a thirty gigabyte hard drive, you'd be able to store roughly 2.13 hours of DV footage. That's at a resolution of 720x480 at 29.97 frames per second...and at a cost that is quite a few times that of the equivalent tape storage.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. Watch out for black helicopters when you're surfing pr0n wirelessly.
Infrastructure that's already in place, vs. spending a *lot* of money to add an entirely new infrastructure...
Hmm.
In this case, it probably has more to do with Microsoft's reputation vs. TiVo's. In the eyes of many, Microsoft has participated in lots of shady shenanigans. On the other hand, many people have trust for TiVo because TiVo appears to go to significant effort to keep their customers informed of anything that could be construed as questionable behavior.
Reality is all about perception; don't forget that.
His eyes were removed, so yes.
http://www.wemarket4u.net/
It looks like they've been doing this for around two years now.
I don't get what all the sudden uproar over this particular time compression box is about. FYI, everyone...this technology has been around for a good while now, and you've probably been watching it everyday and nobody complained about it until now. Why now? Why haven't people been noticing that the shows are time-compressed and complaining about it in the comments of articles about TV?
Ah, yes...and how exactly does TV, other mass media, and the Internet make people into mindless drones? Is EM radiation turning us into zombies or something? Are there mind-altering signals embedded in websites? Do see hidden swastikas in national newspapers? Do infomercials feature hypnosis?
It always gets me when people take potshots at mass media when they don't back it up with facts.
Something like this will most likely end up costing more in the end.
I don't think this will happen anytime in the near future. Few companies seem as brave as Apple is when it comes to taking steps towards throwing out the old ways.
One of the main functions of mass media is the perpetuation and dissemination of culture. Although RIAA may be greedy about it, why is the dissemination of culture bad necessarily?
In most cultures, people are willing to pay for reflexive representation of values they hold. Whether it's a poster for the movie Pi or an N'Sync album, both are cultural representations and perpatuations...and people are willing to pay for both. Why is this bad?
No offense here, but...uhm...what?
Fifty dollars is cheaper than my Thanksgiving dinner's going to be. Wonder what the family'd say if they opened the serving tray and saw a Dreamcast?
Oh, that's an easy question. Haven't you seen the commercials? They'll say "SEGA!"
While this doesn't make sense for a consumer grade camera today, it might make sense for a pro grade camera for use by reporters in the field.
*NO* media professional would ever take a product like this seriously. Have you ever seen an electronic news gathering camera? It's cluttered up with enough buttons as it is, and the display has enough indicators to deal with without silly things like email and web browsers.
I want a toaster in my video camera. Sure would put a new spin on that old Amiga program "Video Toaster," eh?
DV footage is about four megabytes per second. On a thirty gigabyte hard drive, you'd be able to store roughly 2.13 hours of DV footage. That's at a resolution of 720x480 at 29.97 frames per second...and at a cost that is quite a few times that of the equivalent tape storage.
Still want that hard drive camcorder?